Joel runs his successful business, bothers to blog about it since he founded it years ago, graciously comes on here and responds to people - nice of him, huh? So why so bitchy?
You clearly disagree with his company's engineering decisions that you can't possibly have been privy to the reasoning behind. What's your motivation?
First of all, his business is so successful because he blogs about it, and establishes himself as a pundit. It isn't a 'bother', it's one of his primary responsibilities as the CEO.
Why so bitchy? What's my motivation? -- this whole thing is call and response, we're just filling roles. Spolsky's slipped into punditry, you're the sycophant, and I'm the prick popping your balloons. Joel certainly wrote his post knowing that he was teasing for a "WTF Wasabi" response -- why don't you see that as valid?
Any community where the only valid 'response' is fawning fanboy is not one I want to participate in, and I think spolsky would say the same. There's a reason he doesn't just post in his own forums.
I disagree with his company's engineering decision based on the reasoning he's publicly given for it (which happens to also run counter to his past advice). He hasn't said anything about it for a while, though he dropped a promising tidbit in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=536023
Instead of addressing my questions, you went with the ad hominem and called me a sycophant. Nice one.
Love your generalisation about blogging and (alleged) punditry being a primary responsibility too - because clearly SO many CEOs take this responsibility in their stride.
I wasn't talking about "many CEOs", just Joel. If you bother to read his blog posts, you'd notice that he constantly talks about how he's delegated away a lot of decision-making responsibility.
He functions as the public face of his company. His companies' products are marketed towards developers, and I gather that most find out about them because of Spolsky's blogging -- he's a very effective salesman.
2. He is describing a stupid decision he made, which is framed around an unacknowledged stupid decision he made years ago (see 3).
3. His company uses a private language they wrote themselves, for totally ridiculous reasons, despite having written essays about how "you shouldn't let your programmers use any non-mainstream languages".
When I first read about Wasabi, I kind of wondered. But then in a previous lifetime, I was with a company that wrote its own compiler. A few years after that, the CEO said "thank god for that compiler" as it relieved pressure on a target chip decision. Similarly, Wasabi has targeted a completely different end architecture with apparently little fuss. This is not a trivial result.
I think people are upset that Joel markets it as a good idea when, in fact, it is probably not that good of an idea.
(Yes, he gets that 1% of the market that can't run whatever language they pick, but he has to maintain his own in-house programing language and toolchain, and train new developers to use a language that exists nowhere else in the world.)
